<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Nov 8 2004, 07:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Nov 8 2004, 07:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 8 2004, 07:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 8 2004, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ironically I would argue that a 'spiritual moment' is probably one of the most inconcreate reasons to align to a religion, as it has pretty much been scientifically proven that our brains don't need actual imput from reality to create images that look and feel exactly like reality.
I hope you can get over your apathetic concern for the nature of reality long enough to seek answers one day, but until then, I only really wish you the best.
Good luck! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I realise, on reflection, that "spiritual moments" are associated more with spirit mediums hamming it up. Bad wording on my part. I just mean an epiphany; an experience that changes my world-view. A miracle wouldn't do anything for me. Wow, so a statue's crying blood. <i>Whatever</i>.
Thanks for the luck. I'll take all I can get. (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fair enough...
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really? I was going to say that the ultimate proof of God's non-existance is that this thread didn't get locked back on page 10 or so... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Say what now?
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 9 2004, 12:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 9 2004, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really? I was going to say that the ultimate proof of God's non-existance is that this thread didn't get locked back on page 10 or so... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Say what now?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At that point the discussion had beome Religion vs non-religion and remaind such for a while. This is strictly forbidden by the forum rules and even more importantly has nothing to do with the topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 9 2004, 12:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 9 2004, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 9 2004, 12:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 9 2004, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really? I was going to say that the ultimate proof of God's non-existance is that this thread didn't get locked back on page 10 or so... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Say what now?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At that point the discussion had beome Religion vs non-religion and remaind such for a while. This is strictly forbidden by the forum rules and even more importantly has nothing to do with the topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree because, Who Jesus Was is detramintal(sp?) to the Christians case. Also I don't see why the mods wouldn't allow <b>civil</b> discussion on religion, so long as no one gets all flamey.
Religious discussion is perfectly fine, the problem occurs when we have religious people arguing with non-religious people, where it essentially boils down to a debate about wether or not God exists. These kinds of discussions are pointless because, as coil said: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A debate between someone with a scientific worldview and someone with a religious one is like a sporting contest between a guy with a hockey stick and another with a squash raquet. They can't play the same game because they're using different equipment, and each refuses to play the game for which the other is equipped.
...And for all they know they're supposed to be playing basketball anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because of this, the discussion forums now mandate that a discussion be either entirely theological, or entirely scientific, not both.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 9 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really? I was going to say that the ultimate proof of God's non-existance is that this thread didn't get locked back on page 10 or so... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, I would call that an act of God <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not trying to be rude, but that doesn't sound like a religion, if we suppose the definition of religion to be: "a system of beliefs". You're saying Agnostics don't know what they believe, therefore I don't see it as a religion or even a belief. If anything it's a state or a passing period in one's life, where they are figuring things out. Saying there is evidence for both "sides" of the story isn't picking a side, it's stating the obvious.
Don’t worry about being rude a’tall. The only way I could be offended in a religious argument is if someone breathed Creationism and Evolution in the same breath and gave them both the same amount of credit [D'oh, honestly not trying to start a debate here. My mind just went too fast for my fingers. Yay, edit!] . I’m the one who has to worry about making somebody else angry. I don’t take stock in any of it.
It’s not a religion, it’s in fact the exact opposite. It’s just leaving yourself open to the possibilities that one day, you’ll find empirical evidence of God’s existence. Finding evidence of God not existing is the same as finding evidence that a brilliant pink sperm whale. While it’s highly improbable (scientifically) for such a sperm whale to exist, we can’t say with 100% certainty that it doesn’t.
Basically, that’s just a stupid analogy for why I’m an agnostic, I think it’s fairly decent. Also, I don’t think that there is any evidence for either view. I know that other people think otherwise, but even while I’ve looked, it just hasn’t been provided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Crap, sorry I missed this Frikk
I would argue in this case that you are absolutly right, but your definition would not be specific to agnostics. Agnosisim is somewhat of a unmolded clay state, although it can form more solid forms. Essentially, any belife is a issue of faith, and all belifes are arrived at via way of the most logical processing of all the input that that particular human is capable of. There inlies the stupidity of Pascals Wager; as a system of logic it is sound, but belifes are never constructed based on threats... They can be physically instilled via punishment, as proven my many psychological experiments, but the human mind is too prone to reverse psychology for any threat, no matter how large, to yeild any greater than 50/50 results, unless the resulting conclusion is predesposed for the participant to agree with. Basicly I'm just saying that if I ever saw someone that Pascal's wager acctually convinced to convert, I would seriosly question alot of the structures that I take for granted at the moment. But really that is neither here nor there. What I really meant to say is that searching for answers about the nature of our existance is a factor outside of faith alltogether, and it shouldn't be at all uncommon to people of any faith, least of all agnostisicm. Questioning and beliving are not nessicarily mutually exclusive events, they just need to follow different topics. As proof, look at the many agnostics out there that simply aren't searching because they don't care. They are in essence a blank slate, yet they do not look to fill that slate. The absence of faith is clearly not the prerequisite for questioning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No worries. I really only object to the use of faith at all I guess. I’ve never been good at taking things on Faith. When I was in science classes in high school, I used to ask my teacher to explain why, or what caused this, or why does this structure cause this. Hell, I still do that. I don’t like being told that “This is the way it is, always has been, and always will be,” without a set of reason, rules, or an explanation of why. I like to be able to understand the underlying causes of events, etc. Faith has always been contrary what I see as my purpose in life, which would be to collect knowledge. I understand when you saw “The absence of faith is clearly not the prerequisite for questioning,” and I’d agree. I know that people can question their belief in God, and other things, which is why we have people become “Born Again” and have people also fall out of their faith.
What I would like to remark is that the disassociated viewpoint is the most effective for looking at a problem. If you look at a problem in physics in a accelerating viewpoint, you can’t (I think, it’s been a while since my last physics class) actually solve the problem. If try to look at yourself and psychoanalyze yourself (again, I think) you can’t do it properly. In order to solve each of these problems you have to remove yourself from that viewpoint to look at it objectively. I’d argue that it’s the same with religion. You can’t decide what is true or not while being indoctrinated with it’s propaganda, and as much as it pains me to say this (and oh man, this is going to be painful) you can’t decide what is true in science while being in indoctrinated in it’s propaganda (ouch… my pride…).
Of course, there are many different agnostics out there. I’m actually one of the non-lazy bastards out there. I’ve got C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity sitting on my bookshelf (Sadly, half read), sitting right next to it is Umberto Ecco Foucault’s Pendulum (Religious Thriller of sorts, very philosophical, and incredibly dense) sitting on it’s other side is a book about Dinosaur Mating habits. I try and read things and engage in these sorts of debates with people all the time. Hasn’t gotten me anywhere, but it’s still fun.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think a Big Lebowski quote is due here
Walter: F--ing Nazi's Dude: There not Nazi's, Walter, they said they were Nhilists! Walter: Well, f-- me! I mean, say what you want about the tenants of socialism..., at least it's an ethos.
Sorry, I digress, but I have always found Big Lebowski quotes somewhat pertanent, and always funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second favorite movie of all time, right behind Jurassic Park.
But, yeah, in reference to this thread, I’m obviously not a golfer.
[Edit: OMG the Megapost! Yeah, now to go back to the begining of this thread to read what it's actually about. Heh.]
science and Christianity are interelated, if they weren't Christianity would be meaningless. the miracle behind Christianity is that Jesus is the only person to say that "this is how things are" and then back it up.
just because some popular beliefs and theories in science don't seem to agree with Christianity does not make the topics seperate. Christianity like science has seen facts and made observations and theories based on those. Those theories may not be exactly correct or maybe not even anywhere near correct but it would be folly to ignore them simply because you don't like that particular idea. science is a best guess of how things really work, Christianity is parallel in that it is a best guess as to how the spiritual works based on facts and personal experiences.
the reason why such conversations are usually in vain is not because of their lack of compatibility but the lack of compatability and tolerance between the humans with those ideas.
logical, rational, analytical and often times counter-culteral thinking is the only way to truly better ones understanding of the universe.
heck merely looking for evidence will lead you to a completely different place. most Christians, i bet, don't even know of the massive amount of evidence corroborating with the life of Jesus and the apostles (the old testament even has an astonishing amount of corroborating evidence).
sometimes you have to accept things as a best guess and also accept that the best guess is better than the worst guess: which is no guess at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 20 2004, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 20 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to the jews, an impostor and a liar, probably a blasphemer too, making ridiculous claims of being the son of God and the Messiah. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd agree with that statement.
Personally I don't agree with any one sole religion or belief, for example I would like to be Christian, married in a church and have a burial. Although I believe that there is no God which created Earth, and then I believe in the ability to think of nothingness and at peace with yourself and the possibility of enlightenment, and so on. I think I'm screwed up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Science is a particular process for examination of claims based on evidence. Christianity is a belief system. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to socialism.
Comments
I hope you can get over your apathetic concern for the nature of reality long enough to seek answers one day, but until then, I only really wish you the best.
Good luck! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I realise, on reflection, that "spiritual moments" are associated more with spirit mediums hamming it up. Bad wording on my part. I just mean an epiphany; an experience that changes my world-view. A miracle wouldn't do anything for me. Wow, so a statue's crying blood. <i>Whatever</i>.
Thanks for the luck. I'll take all I can get. (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough...
A happy ending to a religion thread?!
maybe there is a God..
Say what now?
~ DarkATi
Say what now?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At that point the discussion had beome Religion vs non-religion and remaind such for a while. This is strictly forbidden by the forum rules and even more importantly has nothing to do with the topic.
Say what now?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At that point the discussion had beome Religion vs non-religion and remaind such for a while. This is strictly forbidden by the forum rules and even more importantly has nothing to do with the topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree because, Who Jesus Was is detramintal(sp?) to the Christians case. Also I don't see why the mods wouldn't allow <b>civil</b> discussion on religion, so long as no one gets all flamey.
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A debate between someone with a scientific worldview and someone with a religious one is like a sporting contest between a guy with a hockey stick and another with a squash raquet. They can't play the same game because they're using different equipment, and each refuses to play the game for which the other is equipped.
...And for all they know they're supposed to be playing basketball anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of this, the discussion forums now mandate that a discussion be either entirely theological, or entirely scientific, not both.
Funny, I would call that an act of God <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don’t worry about being rude a’tall. The only way I could be offended in a religious argument is if someone breathed Creationism and Evolution in the same breath and gave them both the same amount of credit [D'oh, honestly not trying to start a debate here. My mind just went too fast for my fingers. Yay, edit!] . I’m the one who has to worry about making somebody else angry. I don’t take stock in any of it.
It’s not a religion, it’s in fact the exact opposite. It’s just leaving yourself open to the possibilities that one day, you’ll find empirical evidence of God’s existence. Finding evidence of God not existing is the same as finding evidence that a brilliant pink sperm whale. While it’s highly improbable (scientifically) for such a sperm whale to exist, we can’t say with 100% certainty that it doesn’t.
Basically, that’s just a stupid analogy for why I’m an agnostic, I think it’s fairly decent. Also, I don’t think that there is any evidence for either view. I know that other people think otherwise, but even while I’ve looked, it just hasn’t been provided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Crap, sorry I missed this Frikk
I would argue in this case that you are absolutly right, but your definition would not be specific to agnostics. Agnosisim is somewhat of a unmolded clay state, although it can form more solid forms. Essentially, any belife is a issue of faith, and all belifes are arrived at via way of the most logical processing of all the input that that particular human is capable of. There inlies the stupidity of Pascals Wager; as a system of logic it is sound, but belifes are never constructed based on threats... They can be physically instilled via punishment, as proven my many psychological experiments, but the human mind is too prone to reverse psychology for any threat, no matter how large, to yeild any greater than 50/50 results, unless the resulting conclusion is predesposed for the participant to agree with. Basicly I'm just saying that if I ever saw someone that Pascal's wager acctually convinced to convert, I would seriosly question alot of the structures that I take for granted at the moment. But really that is neither here nor there. What I really meant to say is that searching for answers about the nature of our existance is a factor outside of faith alltogether, and it shouldn't be at all uncommon to people of any faith, least of all agnostisicm. Questioning and beliving are not nessicarily mutually exclusive events, they just need to follow different topics. As proof, look at the many agnostics out there that simply aren't searching because they don't care. They are in essence a blank slate, yet they do not look to fill that slate. The absence of faith is clearly not the prerequisite for questioning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No worries. I really only object to the use of faith at all I guess. I’ve never been good at taking things on Faith. When I was in science classes in high school, I used to ask my teacher to explain why, or what caused this, or why does this structure cause this. Hell, I still do that. I don’t like being told that “This is the way it is, always has been, and always will be,” without a set of reason, rules, or an explanation of why. I like to be able to understand the underlying causes of events, etc. Faith has always been contrary what I see as my purpose in life, which would be to collect knowledge. I understand when you saw “The absence of faith is clearly not the prerequisite for questioning,” and I’d agree. I know that people can question their belief in God, and other things, which is why we have people become “Born Again” and have people also fall out of their faith.
What I would like to remark is that the disassociated viewpoint is the most effective for looking at a problem. If you look at a problem in physics in a accelerating viewpoint, you can’t (I think, it’s been a while since my last physics class) actually solve the problem. If try to look at yourself and psychoanalyze yourself (again, I think) you can’t do it properly. In order to solve each of these problems you have to remove yourself from that viewpoint to look at it objectively. I’d argue that it’s the same with religion. You can’t decide what is true or not while being indoctrinated with it’s propaganda, and as much as it pains me to say this (and oh man, this is going to be painful) you can’t decide what is true in science while being in indoctrinated in it’s propaganda (ouch… my pride…).
Of course, there are many different agnostics out there. I’m actually one of the non-lazy bastards out there. I’ve got C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity sitting on my bookshelf (Sadly, half read), sitting right next to it is Umberto Ecco Foucault’s Pendulum (Religious Thriller of sorts, very philosophical, and incredibly dense) sitting on it’s other side is a book about Dinosaur Mating habits. I try and read things and engage in these sorts of debates with people all the time. Hasn’t gotten me anywhere, but it’s still fun.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think a Big Lebowski quote is due here
Walter: F--ing Nazi's
Dude: There not Nazi's, Walter, they said they were Nhilists!
Walter: Well, f-- me! I mean, say what you want about the tenants of socialism..., at least it's an ethos.
Sorry, I digress, but I have always found Big Lebowski quotes somewhat pertanent, and always funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second favorite movie of all time, right behind Jurassic Park.
But, yeah, in reference to this thread, I’m obviously not a golfer.
[Edit: OMG the Megapost! Yeah, now to go back to the begining of this thread to read what it's actually about. Heh.]
just because some popular beliefs and theories in science don't seem to agree with Christianity does not make the topics seperate. Christianity like science has seen facts and made observations and theories based on those. Those theories may not be exactly correct or maybe not even anywhere near correct but it would be folly to ignore them simply because you don't like that particular idea. science is a best guess of how things really work, Christianity is parallel in that it is a best guess as to how the spiritual works based on facts and personal experiences.
the reason why such conversations are usually in vain is not because of their lack of compatibility but the lack of compatability and tolerance between the humans with those ideas.
logical, rational, analytical and often times counter-culteral thinking is the only way to truly better ones understanding of the universe.
heck merely looking for evidence will lead you to a completely different place. most Christians, i bet, don't even know of the massive amount of evidence corroborating with the life of Jesus and the apostles (the old testament even has an astonishing amount of corroborating evidence).
sometimes you have to accept things as a best guess and also accept that the best guess is better than the worst guess: which is no guess at all.
I'd agree with that statement.
Personally I don't agree with any one sole religion or belief, for example I would like to be Christian, married in a church and have a burial. Although I believe that there is no God which created Earth, and then I believe in the ability to think of nothingness and at peace with yourself and the possibility of enlightenment, and so on. I think I'm screwed up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You sinners would do well to begin repenting.